SB3 CASE UPDATE. WMUR first reported Tuesday on Twitter that the two-year-old legal challenge of the state’s 2017 voting registration law, Senate Bill 3, has been delayed by another two months – and won’t begin now until early December – and that the delay means a decision will likely not be issued until after the 2020 presidential primary.Originally scheduled for late last year and then postponed several times, the trial will ultimately explore whether the law known as SB3, if it takes effect, will prove to be an undue burden on would-be voters, especially students and low income people, and would suppress voting.The Superior Court’s decision will certainly be appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court by either the plaintiffs, which include the League of Women Voters and the New Hampshire Democratic Party, or the state, represented by the attorney general’s office.The law, signed into law by Gov. Chris Sununu two years ago, was blocked from going into effect by a court order last October, shortly before the midterm elections and that injunction is likely to remain in place.The law, if and when it goes into effect, would require people who register to vote 30 days or fewer before an election, or at the polling place on Election Day, to show proof that they are domiciled in the community in which they say they live, and it requires people to provide documentation.If people do not show documentation at the polling place, they are still allowed to vote but they must fill out affidavits swearing to their domiciles and must follow up with the documentation at a later date.On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge David Anderson issued a one-page order disclosing that the attorneys involved in the case held a conference with the judge last week and agreed to postpone the trial from early September most likely until Dec. 2-5 and 9-10.The order said the parties also agreed to file memos by Aug. 15 stating whether they agree that the court’s order will not be issued until after the presidential primary, tentatively scheduled for Feb. 11, 2020 – subject, of course to Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s ultimate decision.That agreement would mean that the court’s 2018 injunction blocking the new registration requirements and accompanying forms would remain in effect until after the primary. And that, in turn, would mean that the primary would be conducted under current law and requirements.Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards, lead attorney for the state in the case, said that due to other pending issues, “It became clear that we were running out of time to have a full hearing and then have the judge issue an order and have it go up to the Supreme Court, have it decided and then possibly get the new forms out in time” for the primary. So, the judge suggested that we could leave the preliminary injunction in place through the primary.”

SB3 CASE UPDATE. WMUR first reported Tuesday on Twitter that the two-year-old legal challenge of the state’s 2017 voting registration law, Senate Bill 3, has been delayed by another two months – and won’t begin now until early December – and that the delay means a decision will likely not be issued until after the 2020 presidential primary.

Originally scheduled for late last year and then postponed several times, the trial will ultimately explore whether the law known as SB3, if it takes effect, will prove to be an undue burden on would-be voters, especially students and low income people, and would suppress voting.

Advertisement

Related Content

The Superior Court’s decision will certainly be appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court by either the plaintiffs, which include the League of Women Voters and the New Hampshire Democratic Party, or the state, represented by the attorney general’s office.

The law, signed into law by Gov. Chris Sununu two years ago, was blocked from going into effect by a court order last October, shortly before the midterm elections and that injunction is likely to remain in place.

The law, if and when it goes into effect, would require people who register to vote 30 days or fewer before an election, or at the polling place on Election Day, to show proof that they are domiciled in the community in which they say they live, and it requires people to provide documentation.

If people do not show documentation at the polling place, they are still allowed to vote but they must fill out affidavits swearing to their domiciles and must follow up with the documentation at a later date.

On Tuesday, Superior Court Judge David Anderson issued a one-page order disclosing that the attorneys involved in the case held a conference with the judge last week and agreed to postpone the trial from early September most likely until Dec. 2-5 and 9-10.

The order said the parties also agreed to file memos by Aug. 15 stating whether they agree that the court’s order will not be issued until after the presidential primary, tentatively scheduled for Feb. 11, 2020 – subject, of course to Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s ultimate decision.

That agreement would mean that the court’s 2018 injunction blocking the new registration requirements and accompanying forms would remain in effect until after the primary. And that, in turn, would mean that the primary would be conducted under current law and requirements.

Associate Attorney General Anne Edwards, lead attorney for the state in the case, said that due to other pending issues, “It became clear that we were running out of time to have a full hearing and then have the judge issue an order and have it go up to the Supreme Court, have it decided and then possibly get the new forms out in time” for the primary. So, the judge suggested that we could leave the preliminary injunction in place through the primary.”